Is it logical and rational to claim that, except for appearance and a few diseases and conditions of the body, every group is the same in every way?
James Watson, the geneticist who helped unravel the structure of DNA, came under fire for saying that Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners. Aside from his remarks being deemed baseless and unscientific, he has quite predictably been labeled “racist.” Why, some thought police even want him charged under Britain’s Orwellian “racial hatred laws” (Watson is conducting a speaking tour in Britain presently).
In light of this tendency to apply the “R-word,” one that claims as victims late sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, manager of the Cincinnati Reds Dusty Baker, former baseball commissioner Al Campanis, late NFL player Reggie White and many others, I have a question.
What is “racism?”
Is it simply voicing beliefs about differences among races? Am I a racist if I say that blacks have darker skin and frizzier hair? No, I suppose not. What about if I point out that blacks commit an inordinate amount of crime and that 70 percent of black children are born out-of-wedlock, versus 27 percent for whites? Well, in our culture that is borderline. But why? On what basis should we determine what is “racist?”
One might think that pointing out negative characteristic qualities or the weaknesses of a race makes a person a racist, but even this cannot be so. After all, we take pains to emphasize that sickle cell anemia predominantly plagues blacks and that they are more likely to develop heart disease. Then there is the fact that Tay-Sachs Disease is found only among certain distinct groups, mainly Jews. In fact, were we to claim that these crosses are borne equally by all, we would be labeled “racist” for ignoring what ails minorities. It would be said that we really didn’t care if they lived or died. This gets confusing, though; on the one hand we’re castigated for pointing out differences, on the other we’re complimented for doing so.
It might seem that we mustn’t bring to light differences when doing so can lead to discrimination, but not so fast. When we emphasize the fact that only certain groups suffer from certain diseases, they receive attention and funding that others will not. Moreover, showcasing disparities in performance among the races has long been used to justify quotas and set-asides.
So, this is where one must start to think that there is more here – or less – than meets the eye. Is it that we cannot point out differences which, when brought to light, can lead to discrimination that doesn’t benefit politically-favored groups? Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. That certainly is part of the equation.
What, though, should be our standard? Well, it cannot be discovered by analyzing what has been said about Dr. Watson but, rather, by what is usually left unsaid.
Virtually no one has said his remarks were not true.
As was the case with the reception given to The Bell Curve, critics tend to take the position that the issue should not be raised, much less debated. And this brings us to the crux of the matter. All intellectual inquiry, be it scientific or philosophical, should be a search for Truth. This search must be sincere and remain unfettered by agendas or dogmas, and we do otherwise at our own peril.
This is why the politically correct thought police are so destructive. When they criticize a man like Watson, not only do they rarely say his statements are untrue, but the Truth of the matter doesn’t even seem to enter their minds. No, it doesn’t because they are blinded by their agenda.
Oh, having an agenda or hypothesis doesn’t make them unusual, but an intellectually honest seeker of knowledge will alter his hypothesis when the data contradicts it. To these folks, however, their agenda is deified and takes precedence over Truth; thus, when the Truth contradicts their agenda, instead of altering the latter, they simply suppress or rationalize away the Truth. Or, that is, anything they may fear is Truth.
It’s ironic, too, because these leftists are the same people who usually condemn Christianity for stifling scientific enterprise (a false claim). How many times have we heard about Galileo (his story has been mischaracterized)? But who is stifling scientific inquiry and open debate now? Even more egregiously, these modern-day inquisitors would imprison those who violate their dogma. They have become guilty of what they decry.
The Truth is that the outrage here isn’t Dr. Watson’s remarks; they’re either true or not. What’s outrageous is that we’re suffering under the yoke of those to whom Truth means nothing – the practitioners of a dark faith. They don’t care if a statement is correct, only whether it’s politically correct. They hate the Truth when it contradicts their agenda, and they’ll stop at nothing to still the tongues of those who would dare voice it. Racists? These miscreants are infinitely worse. They are Truthists.
And what is the Truth about racial differences? For one thing, is it logical and rational to claim that, except for appearance and a few diseases and conditions of the body, every group is the same in every way?
This is the left’s implication, and it’s absurd. It seems especially odd when you consider that most of these inquisitors are secularists who subscribe to the theory of evolution. Yet, despite their belief that different groups “evolved” in completely different parts of the world, operating in different environments and subject to different stresses, they would have us believe that all groups are identical in terms of the multitude of man’s talents and in every single measure of mental capacity. Why, miracle of miracles, all these two-legged cosmic accidents, the product of a billions-of-years journey from the primordial soup to primacy among creatures, whose evolution was influenced by perhaps millions of factors, wound up being precisely the same. It’s really the best argument for God I’ve ever heard, as such a statistical impossibility could only exist if it was ordained by the one with whom all things are possible.
Lastly, if we really care about a race’s welfare, shouldn’t we “diagnose” its condition – whatever that condition may be – properly so that its gifts may be best utilized, its inherent weaknesses best mitigated and its problems best remedied? If this makes sense with physical crosses such as sickle cell anemia and heart disease, it makes sense for all crosses, be they spiritual, social or, dare I say, intellectual. Stating this isn’t wrong or racist, and it shouldn’t be repressed. And as Dr. Watson might say, that’s something you don’t have to be a Sherlock to understand.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Read more articles by Selwyn Duke
"This is why the politically correct thought police are so destructive. When they criticize a man like Watson"
First of all, I don't think "a man like" Watson is above criticism. On the contrary, given his position, experience and, why not?, age, his responsibility is much higher.
One thing the column did not point out is that he did not say that "blacks have darker skin and frizzier hair". Instead, he blamed African poverty on the fact that blacks are less intelligent. More importantly, he suggested that "all the data" evidence that.
After stating such remarks, he is obliged to present the "data" and prove it - the burden of proof is on the side of the one who makes the claims, right?. The fact, however, is that such proof does not exist. And that is why his comments are ignorant and inadmissible for a scientist of his stature, which has nothing to do with political correctness.
It is never too much to remember that based on the similar "scientific claims" a lot of ethnic cleansing (in order to "improve our race"…) has been done in the past.
Comment by Paulo | October 23, 2007
A great book and resource on this topic from a Christian/Creationist's perspective is
ONE BLOOD:
The Biblical Answer to Racism
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland, and Don Batten
Comment by Jim | October 23, 2007
Why do rational people consistently have to blame the Left's lunacy on Evolution. Evolutionists are not a church of beleivers. They are scientists and intellectuals. THe lay person of the left that refers to Evolution often has very little idea of the intracacies of evolution. In fact it plays very little part
This article made an excellent point that I staunchly beleive. It then degenerates into a commentary on the evil church of evolution and the anti-priests that profess it.
Comment by Carl | October 23, 2007
It is certainly true that racial politics has told us what we can and cannot say, think and do. And yes, the political climate is rife with double standards, the bulk of which seem designed to maintain certain "civil rights" advocates in power.
But the other side of the coin is what some people do with information like "…Africans are not as intelligent as Westerners." Such an assertion, while perhaps true, is a largely useless observation, unless one intends to dismiss an entire class of people based on race. It allows people the excuse to avoid dealing with individuals on their unique merits.
It is the political left that forces people into classes, groups, and associations of "victims." Conservatives celebrate the unique gifts, talents, and accomplishments of each individual as he goes about his daily private affairs, unmolested by the oppressive actions of government.
I view any attempt to group people into classes with suspicion.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 23, 2007
In point of fact, I can easily find examples of people stating - quite explicitly - that what Watson said about intelligence is untrue (well, if "dead wrong" counts as "untrue"): http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/10/james-watson-master-of-scientific-gaffe.html
More, they actually explain why he's wrong.
Human 'races' vary by appearance, but except for ultraviolet sensitivity and a few recessive genes here and there, the differences don't amount to much. Human genetic diversity is actually anomalously low compared to most other primates. It appears that humanity went through a population bottleneck or two in the early days of the species that produced a relatively smaller gene pool. See, e.g., here: http://www.bookrags.com/research/population-bottleneck-gen-03/
(Just to forestall a tedious line of argument - no, this isn't evidence of a genetic 'pinch point' on Noah's ark. Based on the Bible story, we'd expect humans - and perhaps 'clean' animals, depending on how you interpret things - to have more genetic diversity than other species. The opposite is observed. Also, we know what a severe bottleneck a few thousand years ago looks like: cheetahs are so genetically uniform that they can accept skin grafts from each other. That's decidedly not the case with humans.)
So, uh… yeah, we'd expect overall intelligence (however one defines that) and other features to be pretty darn uniform across the human population. Which matches what's actually shown by the data we've managed to gather so far.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | October 23, 2007
Carl,
I don't think anyone is saying the Left's lunacy is because of belief in evolution. However, I do think that it is justifiable to consider belief in evolution as symptomatic of what's wrong with the Left.
Evolution is the perfect substitute religion for the anti-religious. It, combined with extreme evironmentalism and abortion, is a near-perfect representation of a religion. This combination has a diety, a sacrament, a set of dogma, a code of ethics and behavior, and an apocalypse.
Those who might happen to disagree with any particular tenent of this religion are dealt with swiftly and mercilessly. Witness your own reaction to the author, sir.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 23, 2007
Oh, and I forgot to quote Watson's words (link here):
"He says that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really", and I know that this "hot potato" is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"."
I wonder where he gathered his "scientific data" on the black employee problem….
Anyone in need of a definition of racism?
Comment by Paulo | October 23, 2007
Mountain Man,
I would not call my response to the authour "swift and merciless". I did not insult the authour.
The left's use of evolution as an explanation for socialism has had the same effect on the study of evolution, as extreme christian groups have had on Christianity.
People studying evolution are not anti-religious. They are scientists. They do not seek to overturn any religion. They do not seek to validate social action with the scientific theory of evolution.
THe AAAS and John Glen have determined that American Students are falling far behind European and some Asian nations in science. Young Earth Creationism, is doing nothing to help this dire statistic. This above all reasons are why scientists may seem quick to "swiftly and mercilessly" swat layman commentary on evolution away,
Debating evolution is warranted and needed, however the theories contrary to evolution are not scientifically sound, they are based upon a different epistimology. Evolution does not attempt to explain HOW life started. At best it explains the mechanism that allowed for our creation. There are plenty of religious scientists that understand and accept evolution and are themselves people of Christian faith.
Comment by Carl | October 24, 2007